The Limerick Competition - the Results! - welcome to the blog Gadget Warrior, on this occasion we will discuss the information titled The Limerick Competition - the Results! as you are looking for, we have collect a lot of data to make this article so that you are satisfied with the information we convey, well please continue reading:

You can also see our article on:

Forget Brexit and Article 50, forget the Chilcot enquiry, forget whatever sports competition is concerning you at the moment, worry not about the UPC. Cast care aside, for I have the results of the Limerick Competition!

The IPKat was delighted to receive a goodly number of entries, in addition to those posted as comments on the original blogpost, which don't count. Post-entry, more than one applicant subsequently withdrew their application, which, as EPO practitioners will know, prevents publication if filed before the technical preparations for publication are complete. This Kat and James Nurton of Managing Intellectual Property enjoyed reading them all (yes, I know judges always say that, but we really did). While it was specified that "submissions will be judged according to arbitrary and undisclosed criteria", the IPKat will observe obiter that many entries lacked one or both of "a reference to the case being referenced, and a very brief (50-100 words) precis of its subject matter". This did not affect the ratio decidendi since the limerick adjudged the winner was accompanied by both. (The requirement in the competition for an explanation as well as a limerick was an attempt to preserve the education remit of this blog, in addition to its fun element, notes Merpel).

In any passing off claim,Goodwill is the name of the game,To use foreign goodwillDoes not fit the billNor is reputation the same.

[A claimant in a passing off claim had to establish that it had actual goodwill in the jurisdiction and that such goodwill involved the presence of clients or customers in the jurisdiction for the products or services in question. Mere reputation was not sufficient to amount to goodwill.]

while we also liked his other two submissions:

Robert Alexander Johnstone and others (2003)

The HOL worked to construe,The ambit of section Nine Two,And undid convictionBy use of description,And pissed off the BPI too.

[To make out an offence under s.92 Trade Marks Act 1994, the use of the trademark in question must be as an indication of trade origin. The reasonable belief defence under s.92(5) was available to an alleged offender whether or not they were aware of the existence of the relevant registered trademark.]

It’s a truth we all have to acknowledgeWithout actual or objective knowledgeYou just cannot breachYour old firm’s microficheAnd their lawyers should go back to college.

[A former employee was not liable for breach of confidence related to the misuse of confidential information as she had not had actual or objective knowledge of the confidential information in question either during her employment or afterwards. To hold her liable would be inconsistent with legal principle and with maintaining the balance between effectively protecting intellectual property rights and not unreasonably inhibiting competition in the market place.]

Honourable mention goes to the indefatigable Chris Torrero for this:

Microsoft Corp. v i4i Limited Partnership

If you say that a patent’s not newWhen you go to the court for reviewYour case must appearConvincing and clearSo preponderance just will not do.

while we also liked his other two submissions as well:

Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

In Alice the SCOTUS has said,Two steps that have to be read,Just an abstract idea?It’s perfectly clear,It means that your patent is dead!

PMS International Limited v Magmatic Limited (Trunki)

When you consider the design of a case,Neuberger says what you must chase,The difference he feels,Is the colour of wheels,And that which is on the sur-face.

A further honourable mention goes to a contributor who wishes to remain anonymous:

Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd v Modena Trading Pty Limited [2014] HCA 48

There once was an Office down underWhose examination practice caused wonderWhen attorneys complainedThe Registrar 'splained,"High Court judgements? No place here!" Big blunder…

[Standard disclosure had previously been ordered in directions by consent, but the patentee, Husqvarna, applied to amend the directions by an order that there be no disclosure on obviousness. As the judge explained “Disclosure from the patentee in obviousness cases has been a notorious point for many years.” The authority is the Court of Appeal in Nichia v Argos, which, by a majority, did not make a prima facie rule against obviousness disclosure. However, in this case, Birss J decided that the thoughts and comments of the inventor in relation to the prior art would be unlikely to be probative, and would not be worth the cost. Accordingly, Birss J, who has never been keen on disclosure unless it can be specifically justified, reversed the direction on disclosure, and refused disclosure on obviousness.]

- Stuart Jackson

Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

When SCOTUS decided on AliceThe Justices sat in a palaceWhile the inventors’ defeatLeft them out on the street –Perhaps it was done out of malice?

[The patent claimed a method to facilitate the exchange of financial obligations between two parties by using a computer system as a third-party intermediary. Following Bilski v Kappos, the District Court held the claims invalid as being directed to an abstract idea, the en banc Federal Circuit agreed and the Supreme Court affirmed. This is generally seen as a blow to all software patents.]

- Philip Grubb

You’ve all heard of IP Translator:The bane of many a trade mark administrator.You see they’ve all be dreading,having to review every class headingrather than chatting by the coffee percolator. - Cliff Kennedy

If generics cause you headaches, don’t despair,there is a man in London who will care,a champion of pharma,with injunctions as his armour,take Arnold’s patent cures, bad guys beware! - Reuben Jacob

Thanks to the USPTO we have Alice,Whose decision meant no malice.but trying to be "not abstract",and with so many cases to track,Patent agents will soon need digitalis. - "Daniel"

Thanks to the generosity of Managing Intellectual Property, the prize of a complimentary place at an MIP event over the next twelve months is on its way to John Boumphrey. Thanks again to all participants.

Articles The Limerick Competition - the Results! finished we discussed

A few of our information about the The Limerick Competition - the Results!, I hope that we submit article easy to understand

You've finished reading an article The Limerick Competition - the Results! and many articles about gadget in our blog this, please read it. and url link of this article is http://mallcopwarrior.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-limerick-competition-results.html Hopefully discussion articles on could provide more knowledge about gadgets.